jake daubert hof

[rhettyeakley]

I disagree when it comes to Daubert. He should be a HOFer without question. He was perhaps the best at his position and was regarded as such during his career. Also, the number one thing about Daubert that puts him over top and into the HOF for me is the fact that he stopped playing in 1924, not because his skills deteriorated (like in most players' careers) but because the dude DIED. He wasn't done yet and had it not been for seriously unfortunate complications from an appendectomy there is no doubt in my mind he is a HOFer (if he doesn't die)--However, I think he is a HOFer despite the fact that he died in 1924 and had a shorter career than he would have, but with a few more years of playing he is in (no question). Personally, I would rather see Daubert in the Hall than Ron Santo, but that is just my opinion.
-Rhett

[esd10]

daubert was one of the greats of the era and also what he did for the players of that time it was revolutionary and the start of the player union. I know everyone hates the player union today but back then they needed it.I think that's why he was not elected into the hof and that's sad for a player to do as well as he did in a era dominated by pitching.

[esd10]

well the hof inducted addie joss for what he might have done after his death. Im not saying addie joss wasnt great but he wasnt in baseball long enough for him to be in the hof but he's there.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by esd10

*snip* I know everyone hates the player union today...

And the Owners, for that matter.

[3-2-count]

Daubert should no doubt be in the HOF in my opinion.
Here's to you Big Jake. Cheers......

[sayhey24]

Let me begin by saying there are few things more fun than Hall of Fame arguments.

As for Jake Daubert's unfortunate early death -- he was 40 years old when he died -- his career was probably not going to last much longer.

Again, Jake Daubert was very good -- much like Stuffy McInnis and Ed Konetchy from his era, much like Mark Grace and Will Clark from a more recent era. He was not as good as Keith Hernandez. All those names I just mentioned are simply not Hall of Fame caliber (although I would argue that maybe Hernandez is).

Bill James, mentioned before as the definitive source on this, ranks Daubert as the 61st best first baseman of all time. Among those ahead of him -- Hernandez, Clark, Konetchy, Joe Judge, Boog Powell, Cecil Cooper, Wally Joyner, Gil Hodges, Ted Klu, Bill White, John Mayberry, Ron Fairly, Steve Garvey, Norm Cash, Dic Allen and Mickey Vernon. I'm not saying they are all better than Daubert, but some of them certainly are. All told James says 60 first basemen are better than Daubert.

If you're looking for someone who's career was actually ended in it's prime and who deserves HOF consideration, it would be Cecil Travis. A great hitting shortstop, underrated in part because he played for the woeful Senators -- his military service in WWII cut short what may have been a 3,000 hit career. In the 1941 season of Dimaggio's streak and Williams' triple crown, it was Travis who led the American League in hits. It's impossible to say what might have been, but shouldn't a player who had the credentials that Travis did be given a lot of credit for what he lost serving his nation as part of our Greatest Generation?

Greg

[mr2686]

I must agree that HOF arguments are a lot of fun...and frustrating all at the same time.
Let's face it, there are multiple camps on the subject:
1. Sheer numbers that the player puts up...this can work for or against (if the player sticks around too long to gain a magic number, it's points against him).
2. Dominant player at his position for an era
3. Numbers he put up in a shortened career (what he would have done).
4. He's better than player X already in the Hall.

I haven't seen too many people that veered from their opinion on what the HOF criteria should be...and maybe that's why the hof veterans committee has tinkered so much with how the voting process is and who votes. It's the only way that any of these more modern players would ever vote for older players (and for that matter, not many management hof'ers would vote for labor leaders like Marvin Miller, which is what the problem is right now).
At 50, I'm not going to be able to convince someone 35 and younger that there are certain players I watched in the late 60's or early-mid 70's that were dominate at their position and deserve to get in to the Hall. They would just look at the overall numbers or go to a Bill James reference to prove I'm wrong. The overall problem is that everyone buys in to the baseball myth that you can compare players from the past and present, but lets face it, the only thing the same is the distance between the mound and the plate, and the distance between the bases. Rules have been tweaked to raise/lower the mound, outlaw spit-balls, outlaw performance enhancing drugs, etc. You can't compare Hernandez to Daubert...heck, you can't compare any firstbaseman today with anyone in the 90's or early 2000's due to steroids. Players in the 60's and 70's were given "greenies" by the handsfull, and who knows what the olden-day players took.
Anyway, I don't believe it waters down the hall to put players in that were dominate at their position during any one era.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by mr2686

i must agree that hof arguments are a lot of fun...and frustrating all at the same time.
Let's face it, there are multiple camps on the subject:
1. Sheer numbers that the player puts up...this can work for or against (if the player sticks around too long to gain a magic number, it's points against him).
2. Dominant player at his position for an era
3. Numbers he put up in a shortened career (what he would have done).
4. He's better than player x already in the hall.

I haven't seen too many people that veered from their opinion on what the hof criteria should be...and maybe that's why the hof veterans committee has tinkered so much with how the voting process is and who votes. It's the only way that any of these more modern players would ever vote for older players (and for that matter, not many management hof'ers would vote for labor leaders like marvin miller, which is what the problem is right now).
At 50, i'm not going to be able to convince someone 35 and younger that there are certain players i watched in the late 60's or early-mid 70's that were dominate at their position and deserve to get in to the hall. They would just look at the overall numbers or go to a bill james reference to prove i'm wrong. The overall problem is that everyone buys in to the baseball myth that you can compare players from the past and present, but lets face it, the only thing the same is the distance between the mound and the plate, and the distance between the bases. Rules have been tweaked to raise/lower the mound, outlaw spit-balls, outlaw performance enhancing drugs, etc. You can't compare hernandez to daubert...heck, you can't compare any firstbaseman today with anyone in the 90's or early 2000's due to steroids. Players in the 60's and 70's were given "greenies" by the handsfull, and who knows what the olden-day players took.
Anyway, i don't believe it waters down the hall to put players in that were dominate at their position during any one era.

Very good points Mike!
+1

[sayhey24]

Mike you absolutely can compare players from different eras, you just can't do it in the simplistic way that many people would like to. You can't compare their numbers against each other, but you can compare them to how they ranked with the rest of the league in their own time.

What I mean by that is that still using Jake Daubert as our example, he was very similar to other very good first basemen of his era, but he wasn't head and shoulders above them. He was a very good hitter for average, but his RBI totals were abysmal for a first baseman of any era. In his time, he was pretty much the same that Mark Grace, Will Clark and Norm Cash were in their time -- a top notch first baseman. But my question is this -- are those three men that I mentioned Hall of Fame material? Because their careers are still fresh in our minds, we can go beyond the statistics to make a judgment on them. If they are HOFers, then absolutely so is Jake Daubert.

It's become pretty clear now that HOF standards are stricter than they once were. Gil Hodges, Dave Parker, Tony Oliva and Dale Murphy (to name just a few) were much more dominant hitters in their time than Daubert was, and they can't get into the Hall (with the exception of Hodges, they can't even get close).

By the way, Dale Murphy to me has always been a huge HOF mystery. Talk about your dominant players -- he was a superstar, with back to back MVPs ( I think), and lots of amazing statistics. On top of that, he might be the best role model of any player in recent memory, yet he gets virtually no consideration. I'm not saying he definitely deserves to be in, but why is he given the cold shoulder?

Greg

[Hot Springs Bathers]

An easy comparison can be made with one of his peers, Frank Chance.

Daubert 2014 games played
Chance 1288 games played

Daubert .303 BA
Chance .288 BA

Daubert .988 Fielding Average
Chance .983 Fielding Average

Daubert 722 RBIs
Chance 596 RBIs

For most of his career Daubert played for a weaker team though the Dodgers and Reds had their deadball moments. Ah, what a poem can do for you!

In Chance's defense, he was considered by his peers, the press and the public as a real leader thus his nickname "The Peerless Leader." In Daubert's defense he played in Brooklyn a poor sister to the NL Giants and then Cincy on the western frontier so his press coverage may have lacked a bit compared to Chicago? Both were far superior players to either Tinker or Evers. Evers gets lots of credit for being a "hard competitor & brainy" but his numbers are weak.